Q&A Hero

Q: Which of the following was the result in the Case Opener, the case in which the plaintiff attempted, almost a year after attaining the age of majority, to disaffirm contracts for aviation courses on the basis that he had entered into the contracts as a minor? A. That it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to wait so long after attaining the age of majority to attempt to disaffirm and that the contracts would be enforced. B. That the services were necessaries entitling the defendant to enforcement of the contracts. C. Both that it was unreasonable for the plaintiff to wait so long after attaining the age of majority to attempt to disaffirm and that the contracts would be enforced and that the services were necessaries entitling the defendant to enforcement of the contracts. D. That the contracts would be enforced against the plaintiff's parents but not against the plaintiff. E. That it was not unreasonable for the defendant to disaffirm his contracts almost a year after attaining the age of majority and that the disaffirmance would be allowed.

Q: If a legal contract is formed and the subject of the contract then becomes illegal under a new statute, the contract is _____. A. discharged B. enforced C. disregarded D. executed E. executory

Q: Which of the following is true if a contract is disaffirmed on the basis of intoxication? A. Each party to the contract must return the other to the condition he or she was in at the time the contract was entered into. B. The intoxicated person must be returned to the condition he or she was in at the time the contract was entered into, but that is not true for any other party. C. Any party other than the intoxicated person must be returned to the condition he or she was in at the time the contract was entered into. D. So long as the contract was objectively fair, neither party must be returned to the condition he or she was in prior to the time the contract was entered into. E. So long as the contract was subjectively fair in the opinion of the intoxicated party, neither party must be returned to the condition he or she was in prior to the time the contract was entered into.

Q: When a contract is deemed against generally accepted public policy, the courts will determine the agreement to be _____. A. valid B. voidable C. unenforceable D. ratified E. implied

Q: Which of the following was the result in John Miller v. Jay Preefer, Richard Preefer, Comproised Management, Inc., and Palm Beach Ale House and Raw Bar Inc., the case in the text involving Florida law in which the plaintiff claimed that a covenant not to compete in regard to the restaurant business entered into in conjunction with a settlement agreement was unenforceable as a violation of public policy? A. That Florida law provides for enforceability of covenants not to compete under specific circumstances including when entered into as part of a settlement agreement. B. That all covenants not to compete, including the one at issue, were illegal under Florida law. C. That Florida law enforces all covenants not to compete. D. That the covenant not to compete was illegal only because the time constraint was excessive. E. That the plaintiff waited too long to sue after the final judgment incorporating the covenant not to compete and that the covenant not to compete was, therefore, enforceable.

Q: Which of the following is true regarding an agreement to commit a crime or a tort? A. An agreement to commit a crime is enforceable, but an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable. B. An agreement to commit a tort is enforceable, but an agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable. C. An agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable, and an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable unless a business tort in involved in which case the agreement is enforceable. D. An agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable except an agreement to commit white collar crime in which case the agreement is enforceable; and an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable unless a business tort is involved in which case the agreement is enforceable. E. An agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable, and an agreement to commit a tort is also unenforceable.

Q: A(n) _____ occurs when a former minor does not specifically state that he affirms a contract entered into as a minor but takes some action that is consistent with intent to ratify the contract. A. implied ratification B. express ratification C. express novation D. implied novation E. disaffirmance

Q: Which of the following is true regarding the ability of persons suffering from a mental illness to enter into a binding contract? A. Persons suffering from a mental illness never have capacity to enter into a binding contract. B. Persons suffering from a mental illness have full capacity to enter into a binding contract so long as they do not present a danger to themselves or others. C. Persons suffering from a mental illness have full capacity to enter into a binding contract so long as they inform the other party that they are in treatment. D. Persons suffering from a mental illness may have full, limited, or no legal capacity to enter into a binding contract depending on the nature and extent of their mental deficiency. E. Persons who suffer from a mental illness always have full capacity to enter into a binding contract.

Q: Guardians may be appointed for which of the following? A. Only those who are adjudicated insane. B. Only those who are adjudicated habitual drunkards. C. Only those whose judgment has been impaired because of a condition such as Alzheimer's. D. Those who are adjudicated insane or those whose judgment has been impaired because of a condition such as Alzheimer's, but not those who are adjudicated habitual drunkards. E. Those who are adjudicated insane, those whose judgment has been impaired because of a condition such as Alzheimer's, and also those who are adjudicated habitual drunkards.

Q: A contract that supplies the minor with the basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter is called _____. A. a unilateral contract B. an implied contract C. a contract for a necessary D. a ratification E. a contract of adhesion

Q: Which of the following is false regarding contracts for necessaries entered into by minors? A. A minor cannot disaffirm contracts for necessaries. B. A minor can disaffirm a contract for necessaries, but the minor will still be held liable for the reasonable value of the necessary. C. A contract for a necessary is a contract that supplies the minor with the basic necessities of life. D. The purpose of the limitation on the minor's right to disaffirm contracts for necessaries is to ensure that minors are able to obtain the basic necessities of life when their parents will not provide them. E. Whether something is considered a necessary, is related to whether the minor's parents are willing to provide the item in question for the minor.

Q: Which of the following occurs when a person reaches the age of majority and states, either orally or in writing, that he or she intends to be bound by the contact entered into as a minor? A. Implied ratification B. Express ratification C. Express novation D. Implied novation E. Disaffirmance

Q: As a general rule, most states will not allow a minor to disaffirm contracts for which of the following? A. Life insurance B. Health insurance C. Psychological counseling D. Life insurance, health insurance, and psychological counseling E. Life insurance and health insurance, but not psychological counseling

Q: When does disaffirmance by a minor have to occur? A. On the minor's 19th birthday B. On the minor's 21st birthday C. 6 years from the date of the agreement D. 2 years from the date of the agreement E. Within a reasonable time of the minor reaching the age of majority

Q: What is the legal significance in most states when a minor misrepresents his or her age? A. That if a competent party relies on a misrepresentation in good faith, the minor gives up the right to disaffirm the agreement. B. That the minor must restore the competent party to that party's precontract position before obtaining the disaffirmance. C. That the minor may disaffirm but that the competent party has the right to sue the minor in tort and recover damages for fraud. D. That misrepresentation does not affect the minor's right to disaffirm the contract. E. That misrepresentation results in the minor receiving a return of only half the consideration he or she supplied.

Q: Which of the following is true regarding the obligation of a minor on disaffirmance? A. In all states, a minor must return any consideration in his control but is entitled to a full refund of any purchase price regardless of the condition of the consideration when returned. B. In all states, a minor is entitled to a full refund without returning consideration. C. In all states, a minor must return any consideration in his control, must make restitution, and must pay for any loss in value of the collateral. D. In all states, a minor only receives a return of half the minor's investment. E. The obligations of a minor on disaffirmance vary from state to state.

Q: When must a disaffirmance of a contract based on minority occur? A. Before or within a reasonable time of the minor's reaching the age of majority B. Within 30 days of the minor's reaching the age of majority C. Within 60 days of the minor's reaching the age of majority D. Within 90 days of the minor's reaching the age of majority E. Within one year of the minor's reaching the age of majority

Q: Because their contracts are _____, minors have the right, until a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority, to _____, or avoid, their contracts. A. void; disaffirm B. void; affirm C. void; resist D. voidable; disaffirm E. voidable; affirm

Q: Which of the following is true in regard to how Chinese law treats contracts entered into by minors? A. Because parents are considered responsible for their children's actions, parents are held responsible for any contracts entered into by their minor children. B. Minors are held responsible only for contracts involving necessities. C. Minors are not held responsible for any contracts, and contracting with a minor is illegal subjecting the adult contracting party to prison time. D. Children between ten and eighteen are deemed competent for entering into certain contracts appropriate to each child's mental state. E. Children are held responsible only for contracts involving educational expenses.

Q: Which of the following occurs when a minor's parents or legal guardians give up their right to exercise legal control over the minor, typically when the minor moves out of the parents' house and begins supporting him or herself? A. Ratification B. Disaffirmance C. Emancipation D. Legal release E. Reaffirmance

Q: In most cases, when a minor marries, she or he is considered _____. A. emancipated B. freed C. released D. disaffirmed E. either freed or disaffirmed depending on the circumstances

Q: In order to disaffirm a contract, a minor must _____. A. make an application to the court B. express in writing the intention to disaffirm C. express an intention by words or actions D. have his parents write a note E. pick a portion of the contract to disaffirm but not the whole agreement

Q: Historically, which of the following were considered people with limited or no capacity? A. Minors and married women B. Insane persons, single women, and minors C. Single women over 18 and insane persons D. Minors and insane persons E. Minors, insane persons, and married women

Q: In most states, a minor is someone under the age of _____. A. 21 B. 18 C. 19 D. 23 E. 25

Q: A minor may be given full legal capacity to enter into contracts when he or she becomes _____. A. emancipated B. freed C. released D. employed E. either released or employed

Q: Which of the following is an element of a legally binding contract? A. Inquiry B. Acknowledgement C. Capacity D. Knowledge E. Affirmance

Q: A person who has the legal ability to enter into a binding contract has _____. A. capacity B. understanding C. ratification D. history E. consideration

Q: Which of the following is some sort of mental or physical defect that prevents a person from being able to enter into a legally binding contract? A. Immajority B. Capacity C. Chronic illness D. Incapacity E. None of these

Q: A covenant not to compete is an agreement limited to the sale of an ongoing business.

Q: All exculpatory clauses are illegal as a matter of law.

Q: In pari delicto means "in equal fault."

Q: The legal ability to enter into a binding contract is _____. A. disaffirmance B. capacity C. ratification D. usury E. a covenant not to compete

Q: Sabbath laws and blue laws limit the types of certain activities on Sundays.

Q: A contract of an intoxicated person for necessaries will be enforced for the reasonable value of the necessaries.

Q: A written agreement for the sale of an illegal subject matter is voidable under contract law.

Q: Making regular payments under a contract after reaching the age of majority will probably constitute implied ratification of the agreement.

Q: If a person's mental deficiencies have resulted in his being adjudicated insane and a guardian has been appointed for him, he has no capacity to enter into contracts and any contract he attempts to enter into is void.

Q: For purposes of determining capacity, intoxicated persons include those under the influence of alcohol, but not drugs.

Q: Under federal law parents are responsible for the torts of their minor children without any showing of lack of supervision on the part of the parents.

Q: As a general rule, parents are not liable for contracts entered into by their minor children.

Q: A ratified contract is still voidable.

Q: A ratification must be expressed in order to be legally valid.

Q: A minor cannot choose to disaffirm a part of a contract, he or she must disaffirm the entire contract.

Q: Traditionally, if Sam, who is 17 years old, purchases a television from a store, signs a 11-month contract, and then drops it on the way home, Sam could return the television and be entitled to the return of his down payment.

Q: Disaffirmance by a minor must occur by their 18th birthday.

Q: Historically married women were in the category of those lacking contractual capacity.

Q: The age of majority is 18 in all states.

Q: There is a formal court process that must occur for a minor to disaffirm a contract.

Q: Capacity is the legal ability to enter into a binding contract.

Q: Frank is building a home for Debby that under the original contract is to be completed by December 31st. Debby found the plans for the home in a publication focusing on unique houses and is excited because it will be the only home of its type in the area. Because he underestimated the time needed for special and unique framing required for Debby's house, Frank tells Debby that he needs to hire additional workers in order to have the home done by that time and that she needs to pay him an extra $10,000. Debby says that she will pay. Frank finishes the home and asks for his $10,000. Debby refuses to pay. What is the likely result if Frank sues? Discuss whether you believe the result is ethical and equitable.

Q: Define the terms liquidated debt and unliquidated debt, and discuss when an accord and satisfaction is enforceable.

Q: Define and discuss promissory estoppel, and give an example of when it would be applied.

Q: Do you believe that the law should be that consideration must be in an amount similar in value to the item or services being transferred in order for the contract to be enforceable? Discuss why or why not.

Q: Henry's boss, Jacob, tells him that because he has been such a valuable employee, he will receive an extra week of vacation. When Henry decides to schedule the vacation, he reminds Jacob of his statement. Jacob says that he has changed his mind and that he really cannot afford to let Henry off. Henry says that Jacob has breached the contract he had with Jacob for an extra vacation week. Who is right and why?

Q: Marcy's Mom. Marcy's mother, Sue, did not want her to date until she was older. She also wanted Marcy to attend law school. Just before Marcy started her freshman year in college, Sue told Marcy that if Marcy would refrain from dating until she received her law degree, then Sue would pay off all Marcy's school loans and throw in an extra $50,000. Marcy agrees and states, "Thanks, Mom, and by the way, when I graduate I'm throwing you a big party for all you've done for me!" Sue smiles and hugs Marcy. Marcy finished law school and asked for payment of her loans, the $50,000 in cash, and for a car. Sue said, "No way - I know you went out on some dates during law school, and I never agreed on the car." Marcy said those were just study nights and that her mother had never objected to Marcy's frequent statements that she wanted a car upon graduation. Sue asks about the party. Marcy tells her that she is nuts because there is no way Marcy can afford a party since Sue has backed out of the deal. After some serious negotiation Marcy and Sue settled their dispute with Sue agreeing to pay for half of Marcy's school loans and for all the expenses of Marcy's upcoming wedding, and to forget about Marcy throwing a party for her. Was the agreement between Marcy and Sue that Sue would pay Marcy's school loans and throw in an extra $50,000 if Marcy refrained from dating until she received a law degree sufficiently supported by consideration? A. Yes, sufficient consideration existed to support the agreement. B. No, because the agreement was illusory. C. No, because refraining from dating and going to school is not of a monetary value such as to constitute consideration. D. No, because close relatives are involved. E. No, because the consideration was inadequate.

Q: Marcy's Mom. Marcy's mother, Sue, did not want her to date until she was older. She also wanted Marcy to attend law school. Just before Marcy started her freshman year in college, Sue told Marcy that if Marcy would refrain from dating until she received her law degree, then Sue would pay off all Marcy's school loans and throw in an extra $50,000. Marcy agrees and states, "Thanks, Mom, and by the way, when I graduate I'm throwing you a big party for all you've done for me!" Sue smiles and hugs Marcy. Marcy finished law school and asked for payment of her loans, the $50,000 in cash, and for a car. Sue said, "No way - I know you went out on some dates during law school, and I never agreed on the car." Marcy said those were just study nights and that her mother had never objected to Marcy's frequent statements that she wanted a car upon graduation. Sue asks about the party. Marcy tells her that she is nuts because there is no way Marcy can afford a party since Sue has backed out of the deal. After some serious negotiation Marcy and Sue settled their dispute with Sue agreeing to pay for half of Marcy's school loans and for all the expenses of Marcy's upcoming wedding, and to forget about Marcy throwing a party for her. Was there sufficient consideration to support Marcy's agreement to throw a party for Sue? A. Yes, sufficient consideration was present. B. No, there was insufficient consideration because Sue did not promise anything in exchange. C. No, there was insufficient consideration because Marcy's agreement was illusory. D. No, because throwing a party is not of a monetary value such as to constitute consideration. E. No, because close relatives are involved.

Q: Marcy's Mom. Marcy's mother, Sue, did not want her to date until she was older. She also wanted Marcy to attend law school. Just before Marcy started her freshman year in college, Sue told Marcy that if Marcy would refrain from dating until she received her law degree, then Sue would pay off all Marcy's school loans and throw in an extra $50,000. Marcy agrees and states, "Thanks, Mom, and by the way, when I graduate I'm throwing you a big party for all you've done for me!" Sue smiles and hugs Marcy. Marcy finished law school and asked for payment of her loans, the $50,000 in cash, and for a car. Sue said, "No way - I know you went out on some dates during law school, and I never agreed on the car." Marcy said those were just study nights and that her mother had never objected to Marcy's frequent statements that she wanted a car upon graduation. Sue asks about the party. Marcy tells her that she is nuts because there is no way Marcy can afford a party since Sue has backed out of the deal. After some serious negotiation Marcy and Sue settled their dispute with Sue agreeing to pay for half of Marcy's school loans and for all the expenses of Marcy's upcoming wedding, and to forget about Marcy throwing a party for her. What type of alleged debt was involved in the dispute between Marcy and Sue involving the school loans, additional funds, car, and party? A. Liquidated B. Unliquidated C. Supported D. Unsupported E. Liquidated in relation to the school loans, additional funds, and car; and unsupported in relation to the party.

Q: Marcy's Mom. Marcy's mother, Sue, did not want her to date until she was older. She also wanted Marcy to attend law school. Just before Marcy started her freshman year in college, Sue told Marcy that if Marcy would refrain from dating until she received her law degree, then Sue would pay off all Marcy's school loans and throw in an extra $50,000. Marcy agrees and states, "Thanks, Mom, and by the way, when I graduate I'm throwing you a big party for all you've done for me!" Sue smiles and hugs Marcy. Marcy finished law school and asked for payment of her loans, the $50,000 in cash, and for a car. Sue said, "No way - I know you went out on some dates during law school, and I never agreed on the car." Marcy said those were just study nights and that her mother had never objected to Marcy's frequent statements that she wanted a car upon graduation. Sue asks about the party. Marcy tells her that she is nuts because there is no way Marcy can afford a party since Sue has backed out of the deal. After some serious negotiation Marcy and Sue settled their dispute with Sue agreeing to pay for half of Marcy's school loans and for all the expenses of Marcy's upcoming wedding, and to forget about Marcy throwing a party for her. In reaching a settlement, Marcy and Sue entered into a(n) ______. A. partial payment agreement B. promissory estoppel C. settlement and affiliation D. agreement and payment E. accord and satisfaction

Q: Bank Robbery. Victor robbed Safe Bank of a significant sum of cash. Safe Bank offered a reward of $10,000 for anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of Victor. Ted, a police officer in town, promised Safe Bank officials that he would apprehend Victor. While on duty, Ted arrested Victor at a hamburger joint in town. He found Victor based upon a hunch he had after Ursula, who dated Victor, told him about various places Victor enjoyed eating. The bank refuses to pay either Ursula or Ted any of the reward money. Which of the following is true regarding the offer of the reward? A. It pertained to a bilateral contract that could be accepted only with consideration consisting of a promise. B. It pertained to a bilateral contract that could be accepted only with consideration consisting of performance. C. It pertained to a bilateral contract that could be accepted with consideration consisting of a promise performance. D. It pertained to a unilateral contract that could be accepted with consideration consisting of a promise. E. It pertained to a unilateral contract that could be accepted with consideration consisting of performance.

Q: Bank Robbery. Victor robbed Safe Bank of a significant sum of cash. Safe Bank offered a reward of $10,000 for anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of Victor. Ted, a police officer in town, promised Safe Bank officials that he would apprehend Victor. While on duty, Ted arrested Victor at a hamburger joint in town. He found Victor based upon a hunch he had after Ursula, who dated Victor, told him about various places Victor enjoyed eating. The bank refuses to pay either Ursula or Ted any of the reward money. In a lawsuit between the bank and Ted, regarding the reward funds, who is likely to prevail and why? A. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted only provided past consideration. B. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted had a preexisting duty to catch Victor. C. The bank is likely to prevail because Ted's promise to catch Victor was illusory. D. Ted is likely to prevail because his promise to catch Victor resulted in a binding bilateral contract. E. Ted is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on his performance.

Q: Bank Robbery. Victor robbed Safe Bank of a significant sum of cash. Safe Bank offered a reward of $10,000 for anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of Victor. Ted, a police officer in town, promised Safe Bank officials that he would apprehend Victor. While on duty, Ted arrested Victor at a hamburger joint in town. He found Victor based upon a hunch he had after Ursula, who dated Victor, told him about various places Victor enjoyed eating. The bank refuses to pay either Ursula or Ted any of the reward money. In a lawsuit between the bank and Ursula, regarding the reward funds, who is likely to prevail and why? A. The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula only provided past consideration. B. The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula was tainted by being Victor's girlfriend. C. The bank is likely to prevail because no valid bilateral contract existed. D. Ursula is likely to prevail because a valid bilateral contract existed. E. Ursula is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on her provision of information leading to the capture of Victor.

Q: Garage sale. Richard, who is cleaning out his garage, offers to sell Dawn a used computer for $200. Dawn replies that "I'll think about it and buy it if I decide to do so." Richard also calls Denise and offers to give Denise a used business law book. She is excited to receive the book and tells him that she will pick it up the next day. Richard also agrees to sell a communications book for $50 to Jill who promises to pick it up the next day. Meanwhile, Sam comes to visit, offers Richard $20 for the business law book and Richard sells it to him. Sam also offers Richard $50 for the used computer. Richard sells it to Sam because he does not expect to hear from Dawn. Sam sees the communications book and offers Richard $60 for it. Richard decides to forget about Jill and proceeds to sell the book to Sam for $60. Denise is very angry because Richard did not save the book for her and claims that he breached a contract because she had accepted his offer. Jill is also angry because Richard sold the communications book and informs him that he breached the contract he had with her. Exactly 31 days later, Dawn tells Richard that she would like the computer. She tells him that her response constituted consideration in that it bound him to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision. Richard tells Sam that he needs to return everything for a full refund. Sam refuses. Which of the following is true regarding Denise's claim that Richard breached a contract with her because Richard did not save the book for her after she had accepted his offer? A. Denise is correct, and Richard breached a contract he had with her. B. Denise is correct only if she can show that she had given past consideration in other dealings with Richard. C. Denise is correct only if she can show that Richard did not really need the money. D. Denise is incorrect because her acceptance was illusory. E. Denise is incorrect because she did not provide any consideration.

Q: Garage sale. Richard, who is cleaning out his garage, offers to sell Dawn a used computer for $200. Dawn replies that "I'll think about it and buy it if I decide to do so." Richard also calls Denise and offers to give Denise a used business law book. She is excited to receive the book and tells him that she will pick it up the next day. Richard also agrees to sell a communications book for $50 to Jill who promises to pick it up the next day. Meanwhile, Sam comes to visit, offers Richard $20 for the business law book and Richard sells it to him. Sam also offers Richard $50 for the used computer. Richard sells it to Sam because he does not expect to hear from Dawn. Sam sees the communications book and offers Richard $60 for it. Richard decides to forget about Jill and proceeds to sell the book to Sam for $60. Denise is very angry because Richard did not save the book for her and claims that he breached a contract because she had accepted his offer. Jill is also angry because Richard sold the communications book and informs him that he breached the contract he had with her. Exactly 31 days later, Dawn tells Richard that she would like the computer. She tells him that her response constituted consideration in that it bound him to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision. Richard tells Sam that he needs to return everything for a full refund. Sam refuses. Which of the following is true regarding Jill's claim that by selling the communications book for a higher price, Richard breached the contract he had with her? A. Jill is correct. B. Jill is correct only if she can establish that she had prior dealings with Richard. C. Jill is correct only if she can establish that she had provided past consideration in addition to the amount she agreed to pay for the book. D. Jill is incorrect because her acceptance was illusory. E. Jill is incorrect because the amount she agreed to pay was significantly less than the fair market value of the book and, therefore, did not amount to consideration.

Q: Garage sale. Richard, who is cleaning out his garage, offers to sell Dawn a used computer for $200. Dawn replies that "I'll think about it and buy it if I decide to do so." Richard also calls Denise and offers to give Denise a used business law book. She is excited to receive the book and tells him that she will pick it up the next day. Richard also agrees to sell a communications book for $50 to Jill who promises to pick it up the next day. Meanwhile, Sam comes to visit, offers Richard $20 for the business law book and Richard sells it to him. Sam also offers Richard $50 for the used computer. Richard sells it to Sam because he does not expect to hear from Dawn. Sam sees the communications book and offers Richard $60 for it. Richard decides to forget about Jill and proceeds to sell the book to Sam for $60. Denise is very angry because Richard did not save the book for her and claims that he breached a contract because she had accepted his offer. Jill is also angry because Richard sold the communications book and informs him that he breached the contract he had with her. Exactly 31 days later, Dawn tells Richard that she would like the computer. She tells him that her response constituted consideration in that it bound him to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision. Richard tells Sam that he needs to return everything for a full refund. Sam refuses. Which of the following is true regarding the dispute between Richard and Sam regarding whether Sam must return anything? A. Sam must return the computer only. B. Sam must return the business law book only. C. Sam must return the communications book only. D. Sam must return the computer, the business law book, and the communications book. E. Sam does not legally have to return anything.

Q: Garage sale. Richard, who is cleaning out his garage, offers to sell Dawn a used computer for $200. Dawn replies that "I'll think about it and buy it if I decide to do so." Richard also calls Denise and offers to give Denise a used business law book. She is excited to receive the book and tells him that she will pick it up the next day. Richard also agrees to sell a communications book for $50 to Jill who promises to pick it up the next day. Meanwhile, Sam comes to visit, offers Richard $20 for the business law book and Richard sells it to him. Sam also offers Richard $50 for the used computer. Richard sells it to Sam because he does not expect to hear from Dawn. Sam sees the communications book and offers Richard $60 for it. Richard decides to forget about Jill and proceeds to sell the book to Sam for $60. Denise is very angry because Richard did not save the book for her and claims that he breached a contract because she had accepted his offer. Jill is also angry because Richard sold the communications book and informs him that he breached the contract he had with her. Exactly 31 days later, Dawn tells Richard that she would like the computer. She tells him that her response constituted consideration in that it bound him to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision. Richard tells Sam that he needs to return everything for a full refund. Sam refuses. Which of the following is true regarding Dawn's statement that her response was sufficient consideration to bind Richard to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision? A. She is correct. Her statement bound him to an option contract, and he should have awaited her final decision. B. She is incorrect in that her response bound Richard to an option contract, but she is correct that he should have awaited her final decision. C. She is correct that her response bound Richard to an option correct, but she is incorrect that he should have awaited her final decision. D. She is correct that her statement bound him to an option contract, but he should have awaited her final decision only if she can prove that they have had significant business dealings in the past. E. She is incorrect on both counts. Her statement did not create an option contract nor was Richard bound to await her final decision.

Q: Which of the following is true under the UCC regarding checks marked "paid-in-full"? A. If a business inadvertently cashes such a check, the business has 30 days from the date it cashed that check to offer repayment in the same amount to the debtor and avoid an accord and satisfaction. B. If a business inadvertently cashes such a check, the business has 60 days from the date it cashed that check to offer repayment in the same amount to the debtor and avoid an accord and satisfaction. C. If a business inadvertently cashes such a check, the business has 90 days from the date it cashed that check to offer repayment in the same amount to the debtor and avoid an accord and satisfaction. D. If a business inadvertently cashes such a check, the business has 120 days from the date it cashed that check to offer repayment in the same amount to the debtor and avoid an accord and satisfaction. E. The business has no recourse, and the debt is deemed discharged and satisfied.

Q: Garage sale. Richard, who is cleaning out his garage, offers to sell Dawn a used computer for $200. Dawn replies that "I'll think about it and buy it if I decide to do so." Richard also calls Denise and offers to give Denise a used business law book. She is excited to receive the book and tells him that she will pick it up the next day. Richard also agrees to sell a communications book for $50 to Jill who promises to pick it up the next day. Meanwhile, Sam comes to visit, offers Richard $20 for the business law book and Richard sells it to him. Sam also offers Richard $50 for the used computer. Richard sells it to Sam because he does not expect to hear from Dawn. Sam sees the communications book and offers Richard $60 for it. Richard decides to forget about Jill and proceeds to sell the book to Sam for $60. Denise is very angry because Richard did not save the book for her and claims that he breached a contract because she had accepted his offer. Jill is also angry because Richard sold the communications book and informs him that he breached the contract he had with her. Exactly 31 days later, Dawn tells Richard that she would like the computer. She tells him that her response constituted consideration in that it bound him to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision. Richard tells Sam that he needs to return everything for a full refund. Sam refuses. Which of the following best describes Dawn's statement that she would think about it and buy the computer if she decided to do so? A. It is an illusory promise. B. It is a valid promise. C. It is a promise sufficient to require Richard to consult with her prior to selling the computer to someone else. D. It is a promise sufficient to require Richard to consult with her prior to selling the computer to someone else, but only for 30 days. E. It is a real promise.

Q: Which of the following represents a valid accord and satisfaction? A. When a dispute over an unliquidated debt is settled and paid for less than the full amount. B. When a dispute over a liquidated debt is settled and paid for less than the full amount. C. When a dispute over an unliquidated debt is settled and paid for the full amount. D. When a dispute over a liquidated debt is settled and paid for the full amount. E. When a dispute over either an unliquidated or liquidated debt is settled and paid for less than the full amount.

Q: A new agreement to pay less than the creditor claims is owed is called a(n) _______. A. satisfaction B. accord C. both satisfaction and accord D. written compromise E. written acknowledgement

Q: When an accord and satisfaction is at issue, the ______ is the payment, by the debtor, of the reduced amount. A. satisfaction B. accord C. both satisfaction and accord D. fund transfer E. bond

Q: Which of the following is true regarding a valid accord and satisfaction? A. When amounts agreed upon are paid, the debt is fully discharged. B. When amounts agreed upon are paid, the debt is fully discharged except for any late charges due under the original agreement. C. When amounts agreed upon are paid, the debt is fully discharged except for any interest due under the original agreement. D. When amounts agreed upon are paid, the debt is fully discharged except for any late charges and any interest due under the original agreement. E. When amounts agreed upon are paid, the debt is fully discharged except for any late charges or interest due under the original agreement, or for attorney fees of the creditor that are due.

Q: Which of the following is true regarding whether an accepted offer to satisfy a debt by paying only part is consideration? A. Partial payment is consideration under all circumstances. B. Partial payment is not consideration under any circumstances. C. Partial payment is consideration if a liquidated debt is involved. D. Partial payment is consideration if an unliquidated debt is involved. E. Partial payment is consideration only if a liquidated or unliquidated debt is involved.

Q: In a(n) ______ debt, there is no dispute about the fact that money is owed and the amount of money owed. A. actual B. acknowledged C. certain D. liquidated E. unliquidated

Q: In a(n) ______ debt, the parties either dispute the fact that any money is owed or agree that some money is owed but dispute the amount. A. disputed B. unacknowledged C. uncertain D. liquidated E. unliquidated

Q: Yolanda agrees to bathe and groom Wendy's dog, Fluffy, for $20. Yolanda agreed to the price before seeing Fluffy, a very plump, grouchy Pembroke Welsh Corgi dog with lots of hair. Yolanda tells Wendy that if she is going to groom Fluffy, the price will be $30. Wendy agrees although noting that the dog is named "Fluffy." Yolanda bathes and grooms Fluffy, but Wendy will only pay $20. Which of the following is correct regarding Yolanda's entitlement to the extra $10? A. Yolanda is entitled to the extra $10 because a valid bilateral contract existed. B. Yolanda is entitled to the extra $10 because a valid unilateral contract existed. C. Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule is inapplicable, Yolanda is not entitled to the extra $10 because she had a preexisting duty to bathe and groom Fluffy for $20. D. Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule is inapplicable, Yolanda is not entitled to the extra $10 because Wendy's promise to pay $30 was illusory. E. Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule is inapplicable, Yolanda is not entitled to the extra $10 because past consideration was involved.

Q: What are the exception(s) to the preexisting-duty rule? A. Unforeseen circumstances only. B. Additional work only. C. Past consideration only. D. Unforeseen circumstances and additional work, but not past consideration. E. Unforeseen circumstances, additional work, and past consideration.

Q: Sally goes to have her hair trimmed and agrees to pay $40 to the stylist. While there, Sally decides that she would also like highlights. The stylist informs her that highlights will cost an additional $30. Sally agrees to the price, gets the highlights, but refuses to pay the extra amount. What is the likely result in a dispute between Sally and the stylist, and why? A. The stylist will win because she did additional work in exchange for the extra payment and, therefore, Sally's promise was supported by valid consideration. B. The stylist will win because she did additional work in exchange for the extra payment and, therefore, a valid unilateral contract existed. C. The stylist will win unless Sally can show that she had previously received both a trim and highlights for $40. If she can prove that she previously received both for $40, then the past expectations rule applies. D. Sally will win because the stylist had a preexisting duty to have her hair looking as good as possible. E. Sally will win because there was no valid consideration in exchange for the highlighting.

Q: Which party must offer consideration for an agreement to be enforceable in the courts? A. Only the offeror. B. Only the offeree. C. Only the acceptee. D. The offeree and acceptor. E. The offeror and offeree.

Q: Which of the following is true regarding past consideration? A. It is not consideration that will support a binding contract. B. It is consideration that will support a binding contract. C. It is consideration that will support a binding contract only in the employment context. D. It is consideration that will support a binding contract only in the context of the provision of services. E. It is consideration that will support a binding contract only in the restaurant industry.

Q: A promise to do something that you are already obligated to do is ______. A. valid consideration because it is illusory consideration B. valid consideration only in the employment context C. valid consideration because it is past consideration D. valid consideration only if a sale of goods is involved E. not valid consideration